Andreas

Well thanks, that is very nice of you. Due to the exceedingly poor performance of the attendant CM follks (who shall remain unnamed to escape the shame until a date at which I have photographic evidence ready for posting), and my family, in their pityful attempt at drying up the bar, there would have been lots left for you in the open bar. Still, I think the barman was busier than at most Italian weddings. All the best Andreas

Thanks. I think that would be equivalent to allowing area fire in a short distance from the last LOS point?

Without observation? Both IGs had six different charges.

I hired Adam Sandler for the music.

Yeah, but you are clearly unhinged. And you owe me a TCP game. All the best Andreas

Good work Winecape. If it wasn't so unbearably hot here I would drink a glass of Allesverloren to you. All the best Andreas

Yeah yeah. As lame recoveries go, this one is legless. Fess up, Maori Wars are the first setting.

Polling on PBEM at TPG is the equivalent to polling on beer at a pub.

Combat Mission Nepal - gotta have Ghurkas.

Combat Mission Novorossisk?

Because CM is not a simulation of battalion level tactical warfare.

Steve I think that some people may think the decision to leave out battalion HQs is 'purposefully restricting' the scope of the game. But I am just guessing. All the best Andreas

I think a cheese-cake now would be nice. Seriously though, that does not explain what role they are playing, other than being pretty and on the map. That I think is a better reason than the first one, but it implies full modelling of their actions. If after attrition they are acting just like a company command, again no need to have them. Just call the company commands 'BN HQ', and the platoon command Company HQ, and you are off. All the best Andreas All the best Andreas

Why do you need a BN HQ in CM1 to fight BN (or even regimental) battles?

They did, started counting at No. 1,090. Sorry Boris. All the best Andreas

Rubbish, you have no idea what you are talking about. If I had wanted to talk about tracked vehicles I would have said that. Being a civilised country, Germany needed wheeled trucks. Being what it is, Finland needed tracked trucks. 1l/km fuel use. Snigger.

Just to clarify this - from what I could find they started delivering the A4 from 85, and developing the A5 in 1988/9? And deliver that from 1992/5? While the A6 was introduced in 2001. Is that broadly correct?

Kip I have no emotional attachment to the A4, since I was in the Luftwaffe. Now if you started telling me that the Unimog was not in fact the best off-road military truck ever, I'd come over to the UK to give you a piece of my mind. I am just asking because I thought it was a given that the Abrams or indeed any other tank) with an L44 would penetrate an A4 frontally. So no more eggshells with hammers. Interesting.

Finnish platoons equal regiments in other armies.

More like 15 years. First delivery of 2A4 was 1985, first delivery of 2A6 2001, and the A5 is early 90s, so a ten year gap, if we are generous. Sorry, is there a typo somewhere, or are you trying to say that the L44 will have trouble with the front armour of the A4? At what ranges?

Thanks. I needed that laugh. Well, we come back to my previous judgement. You don't know what you are talking about. My guess is that the chaps you believe you have your information from also don't know much about what you are talking about.

So what kind of expertise do they have on the newest Abrams and the Leo 2A4 that enables them to make such comparisons?

No thanks. I take Kip's word for the Challenger 2, but I doubt that your mates in Iraq would be able to comment meaningfully on either of these questions if that is their qualification, since I am also not aware of any Challenger 2 vs. Leo 2A4 encounters there. As for the Abrams, I'll wait for someone with a clue to come by and comment.

So how is the newest Abrams massively superior to the Leo 2A4 then? When did the newest Abrams fight the Leo 2A4 in Iraq?

Depends on how they do it. You could still offer individual support companies/platoons, just not on the same basis as at the moment, where they are integrated in the battalion. Basically if there were little change from CM1 we would be talking about a proper OOB treatment for the support section (guns in batteries, mortars and HMGs in platoons etc.).